• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Oregon sheriff taking pot user gun permit case to DC

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
there are way worse prescribed drugs to be on that could adjust your judgement worse than alcohol. I hurt my back recently and they gave me percocet. It made me so stupid happy and unable to think straight, I did just like I do if I take a drink of alcohol, I locked my firearm in my safe.
 

Lord_Kalen

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2009
Messages
43
Location
Montesano - outer areas, Washington, USA
One thought Ive had what about pre 1898 and black powder repros ? there as far as I understand not subject to the gca of 68 but many states bar felons from owning them or some of these weapons , such as centerfire and rimfire weapons in texas for example , but nothing against muzzleloaders , teatfires , volcanics/needleguns or pinfire .

Washington goes so far as to ban matchlocks and gonnes for felons to possess not sure about "drug users"

Bit of a side line perhaps but she could have a legitimate need for a CHL to carry say a pre 1898 revolver both inline with state and federal law , as while not being prohibited by owning the weapon under federal law , she would likely need to possess a CHL for concealed carry , or preemption to carry loaded in portland and the like
 

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
Not sure where you are getting May Issue as Washington State is a Shall Issue State unless there is disqualifying issues at hand.

Read the quote in the context it was given.

Which is why WA says they may issue a CPL, but it's not a defense to a federal charge, as there are situations, like this, where state will issue a CPL, but if carried, could be a violation of federal law.


Taken DIRECTLY from the CPL application..

Although state and local laws do not differ, federal law and state law on the possession of firearms may differ. You may
be prosecuted in federal court if you are prohibited by federal law from possession of a firearm. A state license is not a
defense to a federal prosecution

So, while they MAY issue a CPL to someone who smokes weed, they're INELIGIBLE TO POSSESS A FIREARM, because they're a habitual user of an illegal substance.


KTHXBYE
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
Read the quote in the context it was given.
Taken DIRECTLY from the CPL application..
So, while they MAY issue a CPL to someone who smokes weed, they're INELIGIBLE TO POSSESS A FIREARM, because they're a habitual user of an illegal substance.
KTHXBYE

No where in the CPL Application does it say WA State May Issue, State Law does state it Shall Issue along with disqualifying items.
If one wants to say they may not issue a cpl for disqualifying items or may issue one to one that cannot legally by Federal Law posses a firearm, then that would be true.

The CPL application only has the following You May Be's


  • you may be prohibited from firearms possession,
  • you may be prosecuted in federal court

KTHXBYE :lol:
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
No where in the CPL Application does it say WA State May Issue, State Law does state it Shall Issue along with disqualifying items.
If one wants to say they may not issue a cpl for disqualifying items or may issue one to one that cannot legally by Federal Law posses a firearm, then that would be true.

The CPL application only has the following You May Be's


  • you may be prohibited from firearms possession,
  • you may be prosecuted in federal court

KTHXBYE :lol:

Which is moot because this issue is taking place in Oregon under their laws.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
Is there a moral obligation to follow an un-Constitutional law?

Inalienable Right.

I predict SCOTUS will get it wrong, since they are wrong so often.
 

.45ACPaddy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
999
Location
Lakewood, WA
TechnoWeenie wasn't saying that WA is a "may issue" state. He's saying that while WA may issue something, it's not a legal defense. More of a "WA may do this, WA may do that." rather than referring to may-issue vs shall-issue.
 
Top